6 ms·

"The full set are true monospace fonts, each character being exactly 0.5em wide" Umm... a 0.5em width m?

dave1010uk 15y ago
And a 0.5em width em dash...
losvedir 15y ago
I used to think "em" was defined as the width of the letter m (hence the name), but The Elements of Typographic Style doesn't mention that: Type is usually measured in picas and points ... but horizontal spacing is measured in ems, and the em is a sliding measure. One em is a distance equal to the type size. In 6 point type, an em is 6 points; in 12 point it is 12 points ... Thus a one em space is proportionally the same in any size. The book then shows a little diagram with several different sized squares. So, as I understand it, one em is the width equal to the height of a font (which is generally, but not always, the width that the letter m is designed as). What your quote is saying, then, is all the letters fit in a box which is twice as tall as it is wide.
- InnocentB 15y ago
  I think you're a bit confused here. It's the height of the capital M, not the width of the lowercase em, that is generally 1em.
  - LukeShu 15y ago
    Yeah, it's the height now, but the name derives from the width of an "m", half an em is an "en" (as in em-dash or en-dash)
  - thisrod 15y ago
    "In olden days, an 'em' was the width of an 'M', but this is no longer true; ems are simply arbitrary units that come with a font" - the TeXbook, p60
- stan_rogers 15y ago
  There was a bit of a "redefinition" when digital typesetting came along. An em used to be an M-width (and only made sense as a width measurement, as it changed drastically depending on the letterface used at a given font size). But, then, there used to more than 72 points to the inch too.
- cormullion 15y ago
  The meaning of the word 'em' changes depending on where you look for its definition. Typographers are very creative with things like units and standards: even 'point' has had many different meanings.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

And a 0.5em width em dash...

I used to think "em" was defined as the width of the letter m (hence the name), but The Elements of Typographic Style doesn't mention that: Type is usually measured in picas and points ... but horizontal spacing is measured in ems, and the em is a sliding measure. One em is a distance equal to the type size. In 6 point type, an em is 6 points; in 12 point it is 12 points ... Thus a one em space is proportionally the same in any size. The book then shows a little diagram with several different sized squares. So, as I understand it, one em is the width equal to the height of a font (which is generally, but not always, the width that the letter m is designed as). What your quote is saying, then, is all the letters fit in a box which is twice as tall as it is wide.

InnocentB 15y ago
I think you're a bit confused here. It's the height of the capital M, not the width of the lowercase em, that is generally 1em.
- LukeShu 15y ago
  Yeah, it's the height now, but the name derives from the width of an "m", half an em is an "en" (as in em-dash or en-dash)
- thisrod 15y ago
  "In olden days, an 'em' was the width of an 'M', but this is no longer true; ems are simply arbitrary units that come with a font" - the TeXbook, p60
stan_rogers 15y ago
There was a bit of a "redefinition" when digital typesetting came along. An em used to be an M-width (and only made sense as a width measurement, as it changed drastically depending on the letterface used at a given font size). But, then, there used to more than 72 points to the inch too.
cormullion 15y ago
The meaning of the word 'em' changes depending on where you look for its definition. Typographers are very creative with things like units and standards: even 'point' has had many different meanings.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]